Blog Post

Why was the last TLTRO take-up unexpectedly high?

The final round of TLTRO financing was an unexpected hit with euro area banks. The aim of the programme is to encourage banks to increase lending to the real economy. However, with many now expecting a hike in deposit rates, banks’ enthusiasm might be driven largely by the chance to make a profit from the cheap loans.

By: Date: March 27, 2017 Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance

Last week the ECB published data about the take up of the fourth and last tranche of funding from the second Targeted Long-Term Refinancing Operation (TLTRO 2.0). The data showed an unexpectedly large demand for liquidity from euro area banks. In total, EUR233.47bn was allotted to 474 Eurozone banks.

Although the level of liquidity in the Eurozone remains high, banks enthusiastically took up this last opportunity to borrow money from the ECB for 4 years at negative rates. Prior to the publication of the figures, the Bloomberg consensus (the median estimate of a Bloomberg survey) was forecasting a take-up of about EUR110bn. At EUR233.47bn, the final amount is therefore more than twice what was expected.

When TLTROs were created in 2014, the aim was was to incentivise banks to finance the real economy. In order to do that, the ECB offered banks a new opportunity to fund themselves for 4 years for a volume calculated from their outstanding loans to the euro-area non-financial sector (TLTRO 1.0). In the second programme, TLTRO 2.0, banks were “allowed to borrow an amount equivalent to up to 30% of their outstanding eligible loans on 31st of January 2016, net of the funds from the previous TLTRO that they may still need to repay”.

The interest rate of the loan is normally determined by the MRO rate at the date of the take-up (0% today). However, if the bank’s net lending between 1 February 2016 and 31 January 2018 is higher than a specific benchmark, the cost of TLTRO can fall below that. Specifically, the rate applied can be as low as the deposit rate at the date of the take-up. The ECB’s deposit rate entered negative territory to -0.1% in June 2014, and three more cuts followed, leading the deposit rate to -0.4% today.

This innovation in TLTRO 2.0 reduces the cost of holding increasing reserves at the ECB because of the negative deposit rate. Indeed, if banks borrow at 0% but need to pay the deposit rate of 0.4% for holding reserves, there is some cost involved. However, if banks borrow at 0.4% and pay 0.4% for their deposits, borrowing becomes costless for them. In addition, expectations about the future path of the deposit rate also play a role. If banks expect the deposit rate to increase over the next four years, they can actually make money out of these loans, regardless of what they do with the money. Take up of this fourth and final round of TLTROs might therefore have been influenced by a significant change in expectations.

Following the ECB’s last press conference, in which Mario Draghi was considered a bit more hawkish than previously expected, and with headline inflation suggesting that the ECB is close to its target (even though core inflation is still far from the target), the market is now pricing in a deposit facility rate hike in the first quarter of 2018. This is an important shift. One year ago, market participants were still expecting a further fall in the deposit rate, while now they expect a rise.

Let’s take a look at the EONIA (Euro Overnight Index Average) forward curve, which gives us a picture of market expectations about possible future hikes in the deposit rate. Figure 1 shows the change in market participants’ expectations after the last ECB press conference. As of 22 March, they are pricing in at least one or two 10 bps hikes in the deposit facility rate over the next 12 months.

Looking at the trend in the 1y1y forward EONIA rate (Figure 2) also shows that markets reacted strongly ahead of and straight after the ECB’s last Press Conference on 9 March. The rate increased by 15 bps in less than a week, confirming that market participants now expect hikes in the deposit facility rate.

On aggregate, German and French banks already met their own net lending benchmark and the 2.5% loan stock target, which means that they should easily get the reduced rate of -0.4% for their take-up of the TLTRO. Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Greek banks still have to increase their net lending to the private sector, if they want to lower the reimbursing rate and benefit more from the operation. On aggregate, the periphery countries met their negative benchmarks; however, their eligible net lending remains still below the 2.5% of benchmark loan stock. (See the ECB’s latest Economic Bulletin for more information about developments in net lending to private sector.)

To conclude, through the use of TLTROs banks were able to secure funding for four years at a rate which can go as low as today’s deposit facility rate. Given that they expect the deposit rate to go up during these four years, by securing a four-year funding at a reimbursing rate potentially equal to -0.4%, banks are actually forecasting to make money thanks to TLTROs. This might explain why the last TLTRO was more attractive than the previous ones.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

View comments
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Guntram B. Wolff

Europa sinnvoll gestalten

Die Debatte um die Zukunft Europas sollte gerade in Deutschland konstruktiv geführt werden. Es profitiert von einer stabilen EU und trägt entscheidend zur Fortentwicklung Europas bei. Einer zentralen Diskussion wird man sich stellen müssen: Wie kann die Stabilität des Euroraums erhöht werden? Der hier skizzierte Ansatz wäre eine Möglichkeit für einen Kompromiss.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: May 10, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

External Publication

palgrave handbook of european banking

The Banking Union: An Overview and Open Issues

Dirk Schoenmaker's chapter in 'The Palgrave Handbook of European Banking', a handbook that collates the expertise and research of leading academic and senior policy makers in the field of European banking

By: Dirk Schoenmaker Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: May 2, 2017
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Oct
2
09:00

Europe and Japan: Monetary policies in the age of uncertainty

This event is co-organised by Bruegel and the Kobe University Graduate School of Economics.

Topic: Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Can EMU survive a multi speed Europe?

On 6 April Bruegel, as in previous years, hosted the presentation of the Euro Yearbook, a collection of experts’ insights on the construction of the European Monetary Union through 2016.

Speakers: Pablo Zalba Bidegain, Maria Demertzis, Fernando Fernandez, Javier Méndez Llera, Karl Pichelmann and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: April 6, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

B Coeuré - photo

Central bank communication in a low interest rate environment

Speech by Benoît Cœuré, Member of the Executive Board of the ECB, at an event organised by Bruegel, Brussels, 31 March 2017

By: Benoît Coeuré Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 31, 2017
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Alicia García-Herrero

Who would bet on currency unions after EMU crisis?

The European Monetary Union (EMU) was founded with the idea that nominal convergence would bring real convergence, but structural differences between members have proven wide enough to generate lasting asymmetric negative shocks across the euro area.

By: Alicia García-Herrero and David Martínez Turégano Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: March 29, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

The inflation basket case

Inflation in the euro area has finally reached 2%. But Draghi is right to warn that the underlying dynamics do not point to this being a self-sustaining trend. Breaking down the numbers shows that many inflation basket items are still showing weak price growth or even deflation.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 17, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Guntram B. Wolff

What future for Europe?

The Commission's White Paper on the future of the EU sets out five scenarios, but misses the fundamental questions facing Europe. How should the EU interact with its neighbourhood? How can we manage the tensions created by multi-speed integration? And above all how can the Euro be made sustainable in the absence of a major step towards fiscal union?

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 16, 2017
Read article Download PDF More on this topic More by this author

External Publication

ruble

Collapse of the Ruble zone and its lessons

This essay, published by CESifo, aims to summarise the experiences of the two monetary disintegration episodes, i.e. termination of settlements in TR since 1 January 1991 and the gradual collapse of the Soviet ruble area in 1990–1993.

By: Marek Dabrowski Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: March 15, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Grégory Claeys

Debunking 5 myths about Frexit

French elections are fast approaching and the debate on euro membership is now in full swing. ‘Frexit’ supporters promise that the benefits of leaving the euro would be substantial for the French economy, that economic policy would be greatly improved, and most importantly that the exit process would be a piece of cake. This blog post shows that these claims are greatly exaggerated if not outright lies.

By: Grégory Claeys Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 10, 2017
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Working Paper

WP_01_17 cover

Fundamental uncertainty and unconventional monetary policy: an info-gap approach

This paper applies the info-gap approach to the unconventional monetary policy of the Eurosystem and so takes into account the fundamental uncertainty on inflation shocks and the transmission mechanism.

By: Yakov Ben-Haim, Maria Demertzis and Jan Willem van den End Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: February 28, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

Is Germany a currency manipulator?

What’s at stake: the Financial Times reports that Peter Navarro, head of the US’s National Trade Council, has accused Germany of currency manipulation. He claims that the country uses a 'grossly undervalued' Euro to 'exploit' its trading partners. Angela Merkel replied that the Euro is managed by the European Central Bank, on which Germany does not exert influence. We review what the economic blogosphere thinks of this.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: February 6, 2017
Load more posts